56
NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress READING 1971–2008 MATHEMATICS 1973–2008 U.S. Department of Education NCES 2009–479 Institute of Education Sciences

NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress

READING 1971–2008 MATHEMATICS 1973–2008

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2009–479

I n s t i t u t e o f E d u c a t i o n S c i e n c e s

Page 2: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

The Nation’s Report Card™ informs the public about the academic achievement of elementary and secondary students in the United States. Report cards communicate the findings of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a continuing and nationally representative measure of achievement in various subjects over time.

Since 1969, NAEP assessments have been conducted periodically in reading, mathematics, science, writing, U.S. history, civics, geography, and other subjects. NAEP collects and reports information on student performance at the national, state, and local levels, making the assessment an integral part of our nation’s evaluation of the condition and progress of education. Only academic achievement data and related background information are collected. The privacy of individual students and their families is protected.

NAEP is a congressionally authorized project of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) within the Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible for carrying out the NAEP project. The National Assessment Governing Board oversees and sets policy for NAEP.

The Nation’s Report Card™ informs the public aboutthe academic achievement of elementary andsecondary students in the United States Report

What is The Nation’s Report Card™?

CONTENTS2 Executive Summary

6 Introduction

8 The Long-Term Trend Assessment

in Reading

28 The Long-Term Trend Assessment

in Mathematics

50 Technical Notes

53 Appendix Tables

Executive SummaryThis report presents the results of the NAEP long-term trend assessments in reading and mathemat-ics, which were most recently given in the 2007–08 school year to students at ages 9, 13, and 17.Nationally representative samples of over 26,000public and private school students were assessedin each subject area.

The long-term trend assessments make it possible to chart educational progress since the early 1970s. Results in reading are available for 12 assessments going back to the rst in 1971. The rst of 11 assess-ments in mathematics was administered in 1973. Throughout this report, the most recent results are compared to those from 2004 and from the rst year the assessment was conducted.

The original assessment format, content, and proce-dures were revised somewhat in 2004 to update content and provide accommodations to students with disabili-ties and English language learners. The knowledge and skills assessed, however, remain essentially the same since the rst assessment year.

Improvements seen in reading and mathematics In reading, average scores increased at all three ages since 2004 ( gure A). Average scores were 12 points higher than in 1971 for 9-year-olds and 4 points1 higher for 13-year-olds. The average reading score for 17-year-olds was not signi cantly different from that in 1971.

In mathematics, average scores for 9- and 13-year-olds increased since 2004, while the average score for 17-year-olds did not change signi cantly ( gure B). Average scores were 24 points higher than in 1973 for 9-year-olds and 15 points higher for 13-year-olds. The average mathematics score for 17-year-olds was not signi cantly different from that in 1973.

1 The score-point change is based on the difference between unrounded scores as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the gure.

2 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 3: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE A. Trend in NAEP reading average scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1971–2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500

Scale score

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

0

208* 210* 215* 211* 212* 209* 211* 211* 212* 212*219

285 286 285 289* 290* 290* 290* 288 288 288 285

216*

283*

255* 256* 258 257* 257 257* 260 258 258 259 259

257*

220Age 9

286Age 17

260Age 13

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

FIGURE B. Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1973–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500Scale score

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

0

219* 219* 219*222*

230* 230* 231* 231* 232* 239*Age 9

304 300* 298* 302* 305 307 306 307 308

305Age 17

266* 264* 269* 269* 270* 273* 274* 274* 276*279*

241

307

281

243

306

281Age 13

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment formatExtrapolated data

Reading

Mathematics

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 3

Page 4: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Black students make greater gains from early 1970s than White students

Average reading scores were higher in 2008 than in the rst assessment year for White, Black, and Hispanic students. Across the three age groups, increases from 1971 to 2008 were larger for Black students than for White students. Increases from 1975 to 2008 were greater for Hispanic than for White students at ages 9 and 17, but were not signi cantly different at age 13.

In comparison to 2004, average reading scores were higher in 2008 for White students at all three ages, for Black students at ages 9 and 13, and for Hispanic students at age 9.

Across all three age groups, increases in average math-ematics scores from 1973 to 2008 were greater for both Black and Hispanic students than for White students.

In comparison to 2004, average mathematics scores were higher in 2008 for White students at age 9. There were no signi cant changes in scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old Black and Hispanic students or for 13- and 17-year-old White students over the same period.

Most racial/ethnic score gaps narrow compared to first assessmentWhile the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signi cant change from 2004 to 2008, the gaps did narrow in 2008 com-pared to 1971. White – Hispanic gaps in reading scores also showed no signi cant change from 2004 to 2008 but were smaller in 2008 than in 1975 at ages 9 and 17.

Across all three age groups, neither the White – Black nor White – Hispanic gaps in mathematics changed signi cantly from 2004 to 2008, but both were smaller in 2008 than in 1973.

Changes in the student population over time show a decrease in the percentages of White students and an increase in the percentages of Hispanic students across all three age groups. For example, the percentage of 9-year-olds assessed in reading who were White decreased from 80 percent in 1975 to 56 percent in 2008, and the percentage of Hispanic students increased from 5 to 20 percent over the same period. The propor-tion of Black students has remained more stable over time, making up 14 percent of 9-year-olds assessed in reading in 1971 and 16 percent in 2008.

Mathematics

Age group

Changes from 1973

White Black Hispanic

Age 9 � 25 points � 34 points � 32 points

Age 13 � 16 points � 34 points � 29 points

Age 17 � 4 points � 17 points � 16 points

Age group

Changes from 2004

White Black Hispanic

Age 9 � 5 points �� ��Age 13 �� �� ��Age 17 �� �� ��

� Indicates the score was higher in 2008. �� Indicates that there was no significant change in the score in 2008.

Reading

Age group

Changes from 1971

White Black Hispanic1

Age 9 � 14 points � 34 points � 25 points

Age 13 � 7 points � 25 points � 10 points

Age 17 � 4 points � 28 points � 17 points

Age group

Changes from 2004

White Black Hispanic

Age 9 � 4 points � 7 points � 8 points

Age 13 � 4 points � 8 points ��Age 17 � 7 points �� ��

1 Results for Hispanic students were first available in 1975. Therefore, the results shown in the 1971 section for Hispanic students are from the 1975 assessment.

4 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 5: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.NOTE: The “pre-algebra or general mathematics” response category includes “pre-algebra or introduction to algebra” and “general, business, or consumer mathematics” and students who did not take any of the listed courses. The “other” response category includes students for whom the highest-level mathematics course could not be determined due to missing or inconsistent responses. Results for 1978 are from the original assessment format, and results for 2008 are from the revised assessment format. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1978 and 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

FIGURE D.Percentage of 17-year-old students in NAEP mathematics, by highest-level mathematics course they have ever taken: 1978 and 2008

2008 Year

Age 17

4*

1978

Percent

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

37*

20*

16

6*

17*

1

3

52

17

19

7

Other

Pre-calculusor calculus

Second-yearalgebra ortrigonometry

First-yearalgebra

Geometry

Pre-algebraor generalmathematics

For students whose parents did not finish high school, mathematics scores increase compared to 1978

The average mathematics scores for 13- and 17-year-olds whose parents did not nish high school were higher than they were 30 years ago. At age 13, the score in 2008 for students whose parents did not nish high school was not signi cantly different from the score in 2004 but was 23 points higher than in 1978. At age 17, the average mathematics score for students whose parents did not nish high school was 5 points higher in 2008 than in 2004 and 12 points higher than in 1978.

Scores for 13-year-olds whose parents had higher levels of education were also higher in 2008 than in 1978 but not signi cantly different compared to 2004. There were no signi cant changes in the scores for 17-year-olds whose parents had higher levels of education in comparison to 2004 or 1978.

Percentages of students taking higher-level mathematics increasingTaking higher-level mathematics courses was gener-ally associated with higher scores on the 2008 math-ematics assessment at ages 13 and 17. For example, 13-year-olds who were enrolled in algebra classes scored higher on average than those enrolled in pre-algebra or regular mathematics. The percentages

of 13-year-olds who reported taking pre-algebra or algebra in 2008 were higher than the percentages in 1986 ( gure C). The percentage of 17-year-olds who reported they had taken pre-calculus or calculus was higher in 2008 than in 1978, as was the percentage who had taken second-year algebra or trigonometry ( gure D).

FIGURE C.Percentage of 13-year-old students in NAEP mathematics, by type of mathematics course they have taken during the school year: 1986 and 2008

# Rounds to zero.* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.NOTE: Results for 1986 are from the original assessment format, and results for 2008 are from the revised assessment format. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1986 and 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

1986

Percent

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

16*

19*

5*

61*

#*2008 Year

7

1

31

30

32

5*

Age 13

Other

Algebra

Pre-algebra

Regularmathematics

Not taking mathematics

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 5

Page 6: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

IntroductionThe reporting of fair and accurate trends in student academic achievement is the primary purpose of NAEP. In this report, results from NAEP’s long-term trend assessments provide an examination of student performance in reading and mathematics across four decades.

NAEP includes two components: the main assessments and the long-term trend assessments. Main NAEP assessments are periodically updated or changed to re:ect current curricula and standards. The long-term trend assessments have measured essentially the same knowledge and skills since the 1970s. While both provide valuable information, it is not possible to accurately com-pare results from the two components because of differ-ences in content and procedures.

Overview of the Long-Term Trend AssessmentsThis report presents results from the most recent NAEP long-term trend assessments, which were administered during the 2007–08 school year, as well as results from previous administrations of the long-term trend assess-ments in reading and mathematics. The reading assess-ment was rst administered in 1971, and the mathematics assessment was rst administered in 1973. The long-term trend program has used essentially the same assessments in each administration year to provide data that can be used to evaluate changes in student performance over long periods of time. In 2004, a number of changes were made to the long-term trend assessment to update the assessment content and procedures while maintaining the ability to report trends over the long term. Some of the changes included replacing questions that were based on outdated contexts; changing some administration proce-dures; and, most notably, providing accommodations for students with disabilities and for English language learn-ers. These revisions did not alter the knowledge and skills that are assessed by the long-term trend assessments.

To ensure that results from the revised assessment format could be validly compared to results from earlier assess-ments, a special bridge study was conducted in 2004. The study involved administering both the original and revised versions to determine how the revisions may have affected the results. Because of the rigorous design of the

study, differences in 2004 results from the original and revised versions could be attributed solely to the inclu-sion of students who would have been excluded if accom-modations had not been offered in the revised version. These differences were comparable to those seen when accommodations were rst introduced in the main NAEP assessments. Average scores from the 2004 revised format were lower than scores from the original format for 9-year-olds overall in reading and for 9-year-old male stu-dents in reading and mathematics. This is consistent with expectations, given the increased inclusion in the revised assessment results of students with disabilities and Eng-lish language learners who otherwise would have been excluded from the assessment. It was therefore concluded that, bearing in mind the differences in the populations of students assessed (accommodated vs. not accom-modated), future assessment results could be compared to those from earlier assessments based on the original version. For a full discussion of the differences between the two assessments and ndings, see the Technical Notes of this report and refer to NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Student Performance in Reading and Mathematics, available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005464.

In the tables and gures of this report, results from 2004 are shown for both the original and revised versions of the assessments. Results from 2004 that are based on the original version are labeled original assessment format and are comparable to results from earlier assessment years in which accommodations were not available. The revised assessment format instituted in 2004 provides accommodations to students who otherwise would have been excluded from the assessment. In 2008, only the revised assessment format was administered. Therefore, this report compares the 2008 results to the results of the 2004 revised assessment format because both used the same instruments and administration procedures and were administered to a more inclusive population of students.

6 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 7: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Results Provided in This ReportThe results presented in this report are based on nation-ally representative samples of students at ages 9, 13, and 17 (table 1). These samples included both public and private school students.

TABLE 1.Number of participating schools and students in NAEP reading and mathematics assessments, by student age group: 2008

Reading Mathematics

Age group Schools Students Schools Students

Age 9 440 8,600 430 8,600

Age 13 420 8,400 420 8,500

Age 17 440 9,600 440 9,600NOTE: The numbers of schools are rounded to the nearest ten, and the numbers of students are rounded to the nearest hundred.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Reading and Mathematics Assessments.

Interpreting the Results

Changes in performance over timeIn discussing performance trends, this report focuses on comparing results from 2008 with those from 2004 and from the rst year the assessment was conducted. Com-parisons between 2008 and 2004 are discussed based on the results of the revised assessment, although the results for both original and revised assessments for 2004 are shown in the tables and gures.

Consistent with widely accepted statistical standards, only those ndings that are statistically signi cant at the .05 level with appropriate adjustments for multiple com-parisons (using the False Discovery Rate procedure) are reported. In the tables and gures of this report, the symbol (*) is used to indicate that an earlier year’s score or percentage is signi cantly different from the 2008 results. Score differences or gaps cited in this report are calculated based on differences between unrounded num-bers. Consequently, they may not be identical to differ-ences that would be obtained by subtracting the rounded values in the tables and gures.

Changes in performance results over time may re:ect not only changes in students’ knowledge and skills but also in other factors, such as changes in student demographics, edu-cation programs and policies, and teacher quali cations.

Accommodations and exclusions in NAEPBeginning in 2004, the long-term trend assessments provided accommodations for students with disabilities and English language learners who could not otherwise be meaningfully assessed. Even with the availability of accommodations, however, some students may still be excluded. Variations in exclusion and accommodation rates that may be due to changes in identi cation, inclu-sion, and accommodation policies should be considered when comparing students’ performance over time. See the Technical Notes for more information on accommo-dations and exclusions.

Differences between groupsThe reader is cautioned against making simple causal inferences about group differences, as a complex mix of educational and socioeconomic factors may affect student performance. See the Technical Notes for more information.

Scale scoresThe reading and mathematics results are reported as scores on a 0–500 scale. Average scores are reported overall for each age and for selected groups of students. Although the score ranges for both subjects are identical, the reading and mathematics results cannot be compared to each other because they were scaled separately.

PercentilesTo show trends in performance for lower-, middle-, and higher-performing students, scores are also reported at ve percentiles (10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th). Percen-tiles indicate the percentage of students whose scores fell below a particular point on the scale. For example, 75 per-cent of students’ scores fell below the 75th percentile score.

Performance levelsFor each subject area, this report provides descriptions of the knowledge and skills that are likely to be demonstrat-ed by students at ve levels on the scale—150, 200, 250, 300, and 350. Although the same ve levels are used for each age group, the likelihood of attaining higher perfor-mance levels is directly related to a student’s age because older students have had more educational experience. Therefore, only those performance levels that are most likely to show signi cant changes across the assessment years are discussed for each age.

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 7

Page 8: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

TABLE 2.Number of reading passages and questions in NAEP reading assessment, by student age group: 2008

Age groupReading

passagesMultiple-choice

questionsConstructed-

response questions

Age 9 37 84 4

Age 13 40 100 7

Age 17 36 96 8

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessment.

The Long-Term Trend Assessment in Reading

The NAEP long-term trend reading assessment required students to answer questions based on a variety of age-appropriate reading materials such as stories, poems, reports, and advertisements. The assessment was designed to measure students’ ability to

locate speci c information in the text provided,

make inferences based on information in two or more parts of the text, and

identify the main idea in the text.

Students’ reading skills were measured using mostly multiple-choice questions and some constructed-response (or open-ended) questions. Each student took only a part of the assessment, consisting of three 15-minute sections. The complete 2008 reading

assessment contained between 36 and 40 reading passages at each age (table 2). Students read between 8 and 15 passages and were asked between one and ve questions about each passage. Sample questions are presented later in this section.

8 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD8 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 9: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 1. Trend in NAEP reading average scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1971–2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500

Scale score

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

0

208* 210* 215* 211* 212* 209* 211* 211* 212* 212*219

285 286 285 289* 290* 290* 290* 288 288 288 285

216*

283*

255* 256* 258 257* 257 257* 260 258 258 259 259

257*

220Age 9

286Age 17

260Age 13

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

Reading skills improveOverall, the national trend in reading showed improve-ment from 2004 to 2008 at all three ages ( gure 1). The average reading score for 9-year-olds was higher in 2008 than in all previous assessment years, increasing 4 points since 2004 and 12 points in comparison to 1971. While the average score for 13-year-olds in 2008 was higher than in

both 2004 and 1971, it was not always signi cantly differ-ent from the scores in all the assessment years in between. The average reading score for 17-year-olds was higher in 2008 than in 2004 but was not signi cantly different from the score in 1971.

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 9

Page 10: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 2. Trend in NAEP reading percentile scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

See notes at end of figure.

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500

Scale score Age 9

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

150

0

260* 258* 262 263 263 266260* 260* 260* 259* 264 265

90th

237* 237* 241* 240* 240* 240* 239* 240* 240* 239* 245 24675th

209* 212* 217* 212* 214* 210* 214* 215* 215* 215*221 224

50th

180*185*

191*184* 184* 179* 183* 184* 186* 185*

194 19825th

152*159*

165*157* 157* 150* 156* 156* 160* 158*

169

263

243*

219*

191*

162*

171 10th

Percentile

2008 Year

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

Lower-performing 9- and 13-year-olds make gainsLike the overall average reading score, the scores for 9-year-olds at the 10th, 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles were higher in 2008 than in all previous assessment years ( gure 2). While there was no signi cant change in the score for the highest-performing 9-year-olds (those at the 90th percentile) from 2004 to 2008, the score in 2008 was higher than in 1971.

While the overall average score for 13-year-olds was higher in 2008 than in both 2004 and 1971, the results varied for students performing at different percentile levels. Scores increased since 2004 for lower-performing students (those at the 10th and 25th percentiles), but there were no signi cant changes

in the scores over the same period for middle- and higher-performing students (those at the 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles). Increases were seen for all but the lowest-performing 13-year-olds (those at the 10th percentile) in 2008 compared to 1971.

Gains for 17-year-olds at the 25th and 75th percentiles contributed to the overall increase in the average reading score from 2004 to 2008. There were no signi cant changes in the scores for students at the 10th, 50th, and 90th percentiles over the same period. Scores did not change signi cantly in 2008 compared to 1971 for 17-year-olds at any of the ve percentile levels.

10 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 11: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 2. Trend in NAEP reading percentile scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students—Continued

90th

75th

50th

25th

10th

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500

Scale score Age 13 Percentile

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

0

208 209 213 210 213 210 208 205* 206 209 210

205*

280* 281* 283 282* 281* 281* 287 285285 286 285284

300* 300* 302* 302* 302* 302* 309 307 306 308 305304

257* 258* 260 258* 258* 257* 262 260 260 261 260

232* 233* 235 234* 234 233* 235 233* 233 234 235

259

233*

211

285

306

262

237

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1971–2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.

90th

75th

50th

25th

10th

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500

Scale score Age 17 Percentile

340

330

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

0

225 228 231236* 241* 237* 233 230 232 233

227

317 316 315 317 316 319 319 319 316 316 315

342 340 337 340 337 343 341 341 338

288 288 287 290 291 291 293* 290 289 289 287

256 258 259266* 263*263* 263* 260 260 261 258

224

313*

337

286

255*

227

317

341

288

258

343 343

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 11

Page 12: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Reading Performance-Level DescriptionsLevel 350: Learn from Specialized Reading Materials

Readers at this level can extend and restructure the ideas presented in specialized and complex texts. Exam-ples include scientific materials, literary essays, and historical documents. Readers are also able to understand the links between ideas, even when those links are not explicitly stated, and to make appropriate generaliza-tions. Performance at this level suggests the ability to synthesize and learn from specialized reading materials.

Level 300: Understand Complicated InformationReaders at this level can understand complicated literary and informational passages, including material about topics they study at school. They can also analyze and integrate less familiar material about topics they study at school as well as provide reactions to and explanations of the text as a whole. Performance at this level suggests the ability to find, understand, summarize, and explain relatively complicated information.

Level 250: Interrelate Ideas and Make GeneralizationsReaders at this level use intermediate skills and strategies to search for, locate, and organize the information they find in relatively lengthy passages and can recognize paraphrases of what they have read. They can also make inferences and reach generalizations about main ideas and the author’s purpose from passages dealing with literature, science, and social studies. Performance at this level suggests the ability to search for specific information, interrelate ideas, and make generalizations.

Level 200: Demonstrate Partially Developed Skills and UnderstandingReaders at this level can locate and identify facts from simple informational paragraphs, stories, and news articles. In addition, they can combine ideas and make inferences based on short, uncomplicated passages. Performance at this level suggests the ability to understand specific or sequentially related information.

Level 150: Carry Out Simple, Discrete Reading TasksReaders at this level can follow brief written directions. They can also select words, phrases, or sentences to describe a simple picture and can interpret simple written clues to identify a common object. Performance at this level suggests the ability to carry out simple, discrete reading tasks.

No significant change for 17-year-olds at any performance levelThe skills and abilities demonstrated by students performing at different points on the reading scale help provide additional context for understanding changes in students’ performance over time. While there have been some increases in the percentages of 9- and 13-year-olds at different levels, the percentages of 17-year-olds at different levels have not changed signi cantly in comparison to 2004 or 1971 ( gure 3).

At age 9, at least 90 percent of students in each assessment year since 1971 could perform the simple, discrete reading tasks described for performance level 150. In the 2008 reading assessment, 96 percent performed at this level or above, an increase of 2 percentage points since 2004 and 5 percentage points in comparison to 1971.

Seventy-three percent of 9-year-olds in 2008 showed evidence of the partially developed skills and under- standing described for level 200. This percentage was higher than the percentages in either 2004 or 1971.

In addition to demonstrating the abilities described for levels 150 and 200, students performing at or above level 250 demonstrated the ability to interrelate ideas and make generalizations about what they read. Twenty-one percent

of 9-year-olds performed at or above level 250 in 2008, which was not signi cantly different from the percentage in 2004 but was higher than the percentage in 1971.

At age 13, at least 92 percent of students performed at or above level 200 in each assessment year. The percentage of students performing at or above this level in 2008 was 2 percentage points higher than in 2004 but was not signi cantly different from 1971.

Sixty-three percent of 13-year-olds performed at or above level 250 in 2008. A higher percentage of students reached this level in 2008 than in either 2004 or 1971.

Thirteen percent of students at age 13 were able to understand complicated information as described for level 300. This percentage was not signi cantly different from the percentage in 2004 but was higher than in 1971.

Among 17-year-olds, 80 percent of students performed at or above level 250 in 2008; 39 percent performed at or above level 300; and 6 percent were able to learn from specialized reading materials as described for level 350. For all three levels, the percentages of students in 2008 did not differ signi cantly from the percentages in 2004 or 1971.

12 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 13: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1971–2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.

FIGURE 3. Trend in NAEP reading performance-level results for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

1971

PercentAge 9

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

91*

59*

16*

1975

93*

62*

15*

1980

95

68*

18*

1984

92*

62*

17*

1988

93*

63*

17*

1990

90*

59*

18

1992

92*

62*

16*

1994

92*

63*

17*

1996

93*

64*

17*

1999

93*

64*

16*

2004

96

70

20

2004 Year

94*

69*

19

2008

96

73

21

Level 150 or aboveLevel 200 or aboveLevel 250 or above

Level 150 or aboveLevel 200 or aboveLevel 250 or above

Original assessment format

Revised assessment format

1971

PercentAge 13

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

93

58*

10*

1975

93

59*

10*

1980

95

61

1984

94

59*

11*11*

1988

95

59*

11* 11*

1990

94

59*

1992

93

62

15

1994

92*

60

14

1996

92

60

14

1999

93

61

15

94

61

13

20042004 Year

92*

59*

12

2008

94

63

13

Level 200 or aboveLevel 250 or aboveLevel 300 or above

Level 200 or aboveLevel 250 or aboveLevel 300 or above

Original assessment format

Revised assessment format

1971

PercentAge 17

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

79

39

7

1975

80

39

6

1980

81

38

5*

1984

83*

40

6

1988

86*

41

5* 5

1990

84*

41*

7

1992

82*

43*

7

1994

81

41

7

1996

82

39

7

1999

82

40

6

2004

80

38

6

2004 Year

79

36

2008

80

39

6

Level 250 or aboveLevel 300 or aboveLevel 350

Level 250 or aboveLevel 300 or aboveLevel 350

Original assessment format

Revised assessment format

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 13

Page 14: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

See notes at end of figure.

FIGURE 4. Trend in White – Black NAEP reading average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

0

170*181*

189* 189*186*182* 185* 185*

191* 186*

197*Black

214* 217* 221* 218* 218* 217* 218* 218* 220* 221* 224*

200

226 White

Score gap

44*35* 32* 32* 29 35* 33* 33* 29 35*

26 27

2008 Year

204

228

24

Age 9

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

Black students make greater gains compared to 1971 than White studentsAt age 9, White and Black students had higher average reading scores in 2008 than in all previous assessment years ( gure 4). The average score for 9-year-old White students was 14 points higher in 2008 than in 1971, while the score for Black students was 34 points higher than in 1971.

At age 13, White and Black students had higher scores in 2008 than in 2004 and 1971. White students showed

a 7-point gain, and Black students showed a 25-point gain in 2008 compared to 1971.

At age 17, the average reading score increased for White students from 2004 to 2008 but showed no signi cant change for Black students. Comparing 1971 to 2008, White students showed a gain of 4 points, while Black students showed a gain of 28 points.1

No significant change in White – Black score gaps since 2004While there were no signi cant changes in the gaps in reading scores between White and Black students from 2004 to 2008, the gaps at all three ages were narrower in 2008 than in 1971. The gaps

narrowed by 20 points, 17 points,2 and 24 points at ages 9, 13, and 17, respectively.

1 The score-point change is based on the differ-ence between unrounded scores as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the gure.2 The score-gap change is based on the differ-ence between unrounded score gaps as opposed to the rounded score gaps shown in the gure.

14 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 15: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 4. Trend in White – Black NAEP reading average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students—Continued

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

222* 226*233* 236*

243 241 238* 234* 234* 238* 244 239*Black

261* 262* 264* 263* 261* 262* 266 265* 266 267 266 265* White

Score gap

39*36* 32* 26* 18 21 29* 31* 32* 29* 2522

2008 Year

247

268

21

Age 13

500Scale score

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

0

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Black includes African American. The White and Black race categories exclude Hispanic origin.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1971–2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

239* 241* 243*

264 274 267 261 266 266 264 262 Black

291* 293 293 295 295 297 297 296 295 295 289*

264

293 White

Score gap

53* 52* 50*32 20* 29 37* 30 29 31 2729

2008 Year

266

295

29

Age 17

500Scale score

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

0

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

About Student DemographicsEach assessment year, NAEP gathers information on student demographics. Reading results are available for White and Black students back to the 1971 long-term trend assessment, and for Hispanic students back to 1975. Because results for Asian/Pacific Islander students were not reportable for some of the previous assessment years, they are not included in this report. In the assessments administered between 1971 and 2004, students were assigned to a racial/ethnic category based on the assessment administrator’s observation. One of the changes introduced as part of the revised assessment format in 2004 was the reporting of students’ race/ethnicity based on information collected from school records (see the Technical Notes for more information).

Changes in the student population over time show a decrease in the percentages of White students in 2008 com-pared to 1971 at all three ages. In contrast, the percentages of Hispanic students increased in 2008 compared to 1975 at all three ages. For example, the percentage of White 9-year-olds decreased from 80 percent in 1975 to 56 percent in 2008, and the percentage of Hispanic 9-year-olds increased from 5 to 20 percent over the same period (see appendix table A-1). The percentage of Black students did not show a significant change from 14 percent of 9-year-olds in 1971 to 16 percent in 2008.

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 15

Page 16: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 5. Trend in White – Hispanic NAEP reading average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

See notes at end of figure.

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

240

230

220

210

200

190

170

160

0

183*190* 187* 194* 189* 192* 186*

195* 193*199*

Hispanic 1

Score gap

White

34* 31* 31* 24 28* 26 32* 25 2825

180

214* 217* 221* 218* 218* 217* 218* 218* 220* 221* 224*

205

21

226

2008 Year

207

21

228

Age 9

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

Gains for Hispanic students vary by ageAt age 9, the average reading score for Hispanic students was higher in 2008 than in all previous assess- ment years ( gure 5). Hispanic students showed an 8-point gain between 2004 and 2008 and a 25-point3 gain in comparison to 1975.

At ages 13 and 17, there were no signi cant changes in scores for Hispanic students since 2004, but scores at both ages were higher in 2008 than in 1975. Compared to 1975, scores increased in 2008 by 10 points at age 13 and by 17 points at age 17.

No significant change in White – Hispanic score gaps since 2004Across all three age groups, there were no signi cant changes in the gaps in reading scores between White and Hispanic students from 2004 to 2008. However, when com- pared to 1975, the gaps in 2008 narrowed by 13 points at age 9 and

by 15 points at age 17. The White – Hispanic score gap for 13-year-old students did not change signi cantly in 2008 compared to 1975.

3 The score-point change is based on the difference between unrounded scores as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the gure.

16 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 17: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 5. Trend in White – Hispanic NAEP reading average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students—Continued

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

0

232*237 240 240 238 239 235* 238

244 241242 Hispanic 1

Score gap

White261* 262* 264* 263* 261* 262* 266 265* 266 267 265*266

30 27 23 21 24 27 30 28 23 2424

2008 Year

242

268

26

Age 13

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.1 Hispanic was not reported as a separate race/ethnicity category in 1971, but data for Hispanic students were included in the overall national results.NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Hispanic includes Latino. The White race category excludes Hispanic origin.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1971–2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

0

252*261*

268 271 275271 263 265

271 267 Hispanic 1

Score gap

291* 293 293 295 295 297 297 296 295 295 289* White

41* 31 27 24 22 26 33 30 24 22

264

293

29

2008 Year

269

295

26

Age 17

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 17

Page 18: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

See notes at end of figure.

FIGURE 6. Trend in Female – Male NAEP reading average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500

Scale score

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

160

0

201* 204*210* 207* 207* 204* 206* 207* 207* 209*

216214* 216* 220*

214* 216* 215* 215* 215* 218* 215*

2008 Year

216

224

Age 9

Male

Female

212*

221 219*

Score gap12* 10 7 11 119 5 8 7610 713*

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

Scores increase since 2004 for males at all three agesThe overall improvement in reading for 9-year-olds was also seen in the results for both male and female students. Average scores for both male and female 9-year-olds were higher in 2008 than in any previous assessment year ( gure 6).

Progress since 2004 varied by gender at age 13. The reading

score for 13-year-old male students was higher in 2008 than in 2004, while the score for female students showed no signi cant change. In comparison to 1971, scores were higher in 2008 for both male and female students.

At age 17, the average reading score for male students increased 4 points from 2004 to 2008, but the

Most gender gaps remain unchangedAcross all three age groups, female students continued to score higher on average in reading than male students in 2008. At age 9, the 7-point gap in 2008 was not signi cantly different from the gap in 2004 but was narrower than the gap in 1971. The 8-point gender

gap for 13-year-olds in 2008 was not signi cantly different from the gaps in either 2004 or in 1971. At age 17, the 11-point gap in 2008 was not signi cantly different from the gaps in any of the previous assessment years.

score for female students did not change signi cantly over the same period. There was no signi cant change for either male or female students when the scores in 2008 were compared to those in 1971.

18 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 19: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 6. Trend in Female – Male NAEP reading average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students—Continued

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500

Scale score

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

0

250* 250* 254 253* 252* 252*251* 254 251* 251* 254

261* 262 263 262 263 263 265 266 264 265

Age 13

Male

Female

256

264

254

264 262

10 Score gap911 13* 11 13* 11 15* 13* 12 10 108 8

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1971–2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.

1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500

Scale score

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

0

279 280 282 284* 286* 284 284* 282 281 281276*

291 291 289294 294 296* 296* 295 295* 295

289

278

292

Age 17

Male

Female

280

291

Score gap12 12 8 12 11 13 15 13 14 147 1110

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 19

Page 20: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

School Participation in NAEPResults by the type of school that students attended are available for the long-term trend reading assessments back to 1980. Assessment participation rates fell below the required standard for reporting results for 9- and 13-year-olds attending private schools in 2004, for 17-year-olds attending private schools in all the assessment years, and for 17-year-olds attending Catholic schools in 2004. In 1996, results for 17-year-old students attend-ing Catholic schools are not reported because the sample size was insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. See the section on School and Student Participation Rates in the Technical Notes for more information.

Reading scores improve for 9-year-old public and private school students over long termIn 2008, between 90 and 92 percent of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds attended public schools, and between 4 and 5 percent attended Catholic schools (see appendix table A-1). While the percentages of students attending public schools have not changed signi cantly in comparison to 1980 at any of the three ages, the percentages of 9- and 13-year-olds attending Catholic schools were lower in 2008 than in 1980.

Average reading scores for public school students at all three ages increased in 2008 in comparison to 2004 (table 3). When compared to 1980 (the earliest results available), the score for 9-year-old public school stu-dents was higher in 2008. However, scores for 13- and

17-year-old public school students in 2008 showed no signi cant changes compared to their scores in 1980.

Nine-year-olds attending private schools4 scored higher in 2008 than in 1980, while 13-year-olds showed no sig- ni cant change in their score when comparing 2008 to 1980. The score for 9-year-old Catholic school students in 2008 was higher than their scores in 1980 and 2004.

In 2008, public school students scored lower than private school students at ages 9 and 13. Scores were lower for public school students than for Catholic school students at all three ages in 2008.

4 Private schools include Catholic schools.

20 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 21: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

TABLE 3. Average scores in NAEP reading, by student age group and type of school: Various years, 1980–2008

Age group and type of school 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 20041 20042 2008

Age 9

Public 214* 209* 210* 208* 209* 209* 210* 210* 217 214* 218

Private 227* 223* 223* 228* 225* 225* 227* 226* ‡ ‡ 237

Catholic 226* 221* 223* 225* 223* 223* 227 225 228 230* 235

Age 13

Public 257 255* 256 255* 257 256 256 257 257 255* 258

Private 271 271 268 270 276 276 273 276 ‡ ‡ 275

Catholic 270 270 266* 273 275 273 275 279 278 276 275

Age 173

Public 284 287* 289* 289* 288* 286 287 286 283 281* 284

Catholic 300 301 300 307 308 301 ‡ 305 ‡ ‡ 303‡ Reporting standards not met.* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008. 1 Original assessment format. Results prior to 2004 are also from the original assessment format.2 Revised assessment format. Results after 2004 are also from the revised assessment format.3 For students at age 17, results are not shown for private schools because the minimum participation guidelines for reporting were not met.NOTE: For all age groups, results are not available for 1971 and 1975.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1980–2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 21

Page 22: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Sample QuestionsBeginning in 2004, as a result of modi cations to the long-term trend reading assessment, it became possible to share questions with the public. Again in 2008, some of the questions that have been administered to students since the early 1970s are being released. These released questions will not be administered in future NAEP long-term trend assessments.

The NAEP long-term trend reading assessment contains a range of reading materials, from simple narrative pas-sages to complex articles on specialized topics. The selections include stories, poems, essays, reports, and passages from textbooks, as well as samples of a train schedule, telephone bill, and advertisements. While some passages in the assessment were administered across the age levels, passage length and dif culty generally increased at ages 13 and 17.

Two sample reading questions for each age group are presented in this section. These questions provide some insight into the types of comprehension skills measured by the long-term trend reading assessment. The response options for the multiple-choice sample questions are provided as the students saw them, and the oval for the cor-rect answer is lled in. Constructed-response questions in the long-term trend reading assessment were typically scored using a 5-level scoring guide, which categorized the accuracy and level of detail provided in the student responses.

In the sample questions that follow, the percentages of students who answered correctly overall and within each performance level are shown in the tables below each sample. For example, 67 percent of age 9 students answered the rst reading sample question correctly, while 30 percent of age 9 students at performance level 150 answered the question correctly (see facing page).

22 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

For More InformationAdditional sample questions from the 2008 long-term trend assessments can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrls.

22 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 23: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Sample Reading Passage and Questions

AGE 9

Frontier WomenLike the early colonial women settlers of the backwoods, frontier women made everything their families needed. Most began work at daybreak and did not rest until late evening. They cooked, spun cloth, made clothing, raised children, and tried to keep their dirt homes clean. They cleared and plowed fields, tended and harvested crops, milked the cows, raised hogs, rode and trained horses, and did just about every chore on the farm.

The women not only worked, they also made most of their own tools. To make pitchforks, they attached handles to deer antlers. Many of the women learned to use a knife well enough to carve spoons, forks, and bowls out of animal bones. They fashioned cups and containers out of vegetable gourds and animal horns.

Which statement best describes the frontier women?

They lived dangerous lives and tamed the West.

They hunted to provide food for their families.

They frequently worried about the safety of their homes.

They worked hard and possessed many skills.

A

B

C

D

Sample question 1 asked students to make an inference based on the details of the passage to determine the best overall description of early colonial women.

Percentage of correct responses for 9-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 150 Level 150 Level 200 Level 250

83 20 56 94 99SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessment.

According to the article, what did frontier women make from animal horns and bones?

Jewelry and ornaments

Tools and eating utensils

Beds and household furniture

Toys and horseshoes

A

B

C

D

Sample question 2 asked students to identify speci c information from the passage.

Percentage of correct responses for 9-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 150 Level 150 Level 200 Level 250

67 26 30 75 99SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessment.

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 23

Page 24: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Elephant seals cannot always be found together or even on land. In fact, for most of the year they prefer to be alone and at sea. But there are two reasons these seals gather on shore each year.

One is to escape the stinging effect of saltwater when they molt, or shed their old hair for new hair. At this time large patches of skin are also shed with the old hair. That is what makes them so sensitive to salt. The other reason elephant seals come ashore is to give birth to their young and to mate.

During the mating season, the seals are as heavy as they will ever be during the year. Females may weigh as much as 1,700 pounds. Males may weigh close to 6,000 pounds and be 17 feet long.

Much of the weight of these animals is fat, which they gain from their diet of squid and other seafood. This fat insulates them from the cold and provides the energy for the long periods when they eat nothing at all. But unfortunately for the seals, their blubber is also a very rich source of oil. The fat from a large male may yield up to 210 gallons of oil.

Although the animals are huge, they can be approached without fear, for on land they move fairly slowly. Unlike many other types of seals, elephant seals have little fear of people. Thus, when large-scale hunting of seals began around 1850, it didn’t take long to kill most of them. By the 1890’s scientists supposed that these seals had been hunted off.

In 1911 it was a great surprise when a small herd of about 100 seals was found on a Mexican island near the coast of Baja California. This discovery was reported to the Mexican government, which immediately stationed soldiers on the island with orders to shoot anyone harming the seals. As you can

24 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Sample Reading Passage and Questions

AGE 13

Elephant Sealsimagine, the seals prospered and within another sixty years the size of the herd had greatly increased.

One feature of elephant seal behavior may have aided this remarkable comeback. The males engage in savage fighting that leaves one bull “King of the Beach.” The winner is a champion prizefighter in the elephant seal world and, as a reward, he will have more “wives” on his part of the beach than any other bull. Farther down the beach, however, there are also other champions. This type of grouping helps the seals, for the strength of the most powerful bulls is passed on to the baby elephant seals. And in a vast ocean where these pups have to outswim an occasional white shark or killer whale, speed and strength are important.

Most of the fighting among males takes place in early December. They arrive at the Mexican island and other areas several weeks before the females so their problems will be settled before their wives arrive. From this time until they leave in March, the bulls eat nothing at all. They stay on shore and live only on the food and water contained in their stored fat.

Females arrive on the beaches in late December. Several days later each gives birth to a pup that weighs about 90 pounds. For one month the mother seal also eats nothing at all. In fact, she does very little other than nurse her pup. By the end of this 30-day period the pup may have tripled its weight, now weighing close to 300 pounds. At that time the mother leaves the pup to survive by itself. She then mates. One year later she gives birth to another pup.

And so the story goes, just as it did for thousands of years before the hunters arrived. Now, with the hunters gone and the seals recovered, this story should continue for thousands of years more.

Page 25: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 25

Sample question 3 asked students to recognize the overall informative purpose of the passage and the emphasis on the seals’ appearance and habits.

Why do elephant seals come ashore each year?

To eat and store up food

To escape the winter migration of the white sharks and to avoid the cold water

To rest up from their hard life at sea and hibernate

To escape the saltwater and to give birth to their young

A

B

C

D

Sample question 4 asked students to identify a speci c cause of seal behavior presented in the passage.

Percentage of correct responses for 13-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 200 Level 200 Level 250 Level 300

63 32 55 67 82SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessment.

What is the main purpose of this article?

To explain why elephant seals are important to humans

To convince the reader that elephant seals are not harmful to humans

To describe the appearance and habits of elephant seals

To convince the reader that laws should be made to protect elephant seals

A

B

D

C

Percentage of correct responses for 13-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 200 Level 200 Level 250 Level 300

74 26 52 88 99SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessment.

Page 26: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Which of the following best describes the man’s fear?

He was worried that his dog was becoming ill.

He kept having fearful thoughts even though he knew there was no danger.

He suspected that there were dangerous animals outside.

He heard voices of people trying to break into the cabin.

A

B

C

D

Sample question 5 asked students to use their understanding of the narrator’s words in the passage to recognize the nature of his fear.

Sample Reading Passage and Questions

AGE 17

Travels with Charley in Search of America

Even the cabin was dismal and damp. I turned the gas mantle high, lit the kerosene lamp, and lighted two burners of my stove to drive the loneliness away. The rain drummed on the metal roof. Nothing in my stock of food looked edible. The darkness fell and the trees moved closer. Over the rain drums I seemed to hear voices, as though a crowd of people muttered and mumbled offstage. Charley was restless. He didn’t bark an alarm, but he growled and whined uneasily, which is very unlike him, and he didn’t eat his supper and he left his water dish untouched—and that by a dog who drinks his weight in water every day and needs to because of the outgo. I succumbed utterly to my desolation, made two peanut-butter sandwiches, and went to bed and wrote letters home, passing my loneliness around. Then the rain stopped falling and the trees dripped and I helped spawn a school of secret dangers. Oh, we can populate the dark with horrors, even we who think ourselves informed and sure, believing nothing we cannot measure or weigh. I knew beyond all doubt that the dark things crowding in on me either did not exist or were not dangerous to me, and still I was afraid. I thought how terrible the nights must have been in a time when men knew the things were there and were deadly. But no, that’s wrong. If I knew they were there, I would have weapons against them, charms, prayers, some kind of alliance with forces equally strong but on my side. Knowing they were not there made me defenseless against them and perhaps more afraid.

26 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Percentage of correct responses for 17-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 250 Level 250 Level 300 Level 350

84 58 84 97 99SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessment.

26 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 27: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Sample question 6 is a constructed-response question that asked students to interpret the overall mood or feeling of a short literary passage and then to explain how the writer of the passage created the mood. Responses to this question were rated with a 5-level scoring guide in one of the following categories:

5 – Mood identi ed and substantiated with multiple pieces of evidence

4 – Mood identi ed and substantiated

3 – Mood identi ed and substantiated with minimal evidence

2 – Mood identi ed without substantiation

1 – Unable to identify mood

Think about the article again. Write down a few words that describe the mood or feeling of the story.

Explain how the writer created this mood.

Percentage of level 5 responses for 17-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 250 Level 250 Level 300 Level 350

3 # # 5 16# Rounds to zero.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessment.

Percentage of level 3 or better responses for 17-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 250 Level 250 Level 300 Level 350

74 44 73 89 97SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessment.

Think about the article again. Write down a few words that describe the mood or feeling of the story.

Explain how the writer created this mood.

The following sample response was rated as level 5 because it correctly identi ed the mood of the passage and provided multiple pieces of evidence. Overall, 3 percent of 17-year-olds provided responses that were rated as level 5.

The following sample response was rated as level 3 because it provided minimal evidence of how the author created the mood. Overall, 74 percent of 17-year-olds wrote responses that were rated as level 3 or better.

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 27

Page 28: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

TABLE 4.Number of multiple-choice and constructed- response questions in NAEP mathematics assess- ment, by student age group: 2008

Age groupMultiple-choice

questionsConstructed-response

questions

Age 9 103 33

Age 13 120 36

Age 17 126 30SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

The Long-Term Trend Assessment in Mathematics

The NAEP long-term trend mathematics assessment required students to respond to a variety of age-appropriate questions. The assessment was designed to measure a student’s

knowledge of basic mathematical facts,

ability to carry out computations using paper and pencil,

knowledge of basic formulas such as those applied in geometric settings, and

ability to apply mathematics to daily-living skills such as those involving time and money.

Students’ mathematics skills were measured using mostly multiple-choice questions and some constructed-response questions. Each student took only a part of the assessment, consisting of three 15-minute sections. The complete 2008 mathematics

assessment contained between 103 and 126 multiple-choice questions and between 30 and 36 constructed-response questions at each age (table 4). Unlike certain sections in the main NAEP assessment, students were not permitted to use a calculator in the long-term trend mathematics assessment. Sample questions are presented later in this section.

28 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 29: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

5 The score-point change is based on the difference between unrounded scores as opposed to the rounded scores shown in the gure.

FIGURE 7. Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1973–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

1973 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500Scale score

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

0

219* 219* 219*222*

230* 230* 231* 231* 232* 239*Age 9

304 300* 298* 302* 305 307 306 307 308

305Age 17

266* 264* 269* 269* 270* 273* 274* 274* 276*279*

241

307

281

243

306

281Age 13

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment formatExtrapolated data

Scores increase for 9- and 13-year-olds

Extrapolated ResultsThe mathematics results from 1973 were extrapolated using a mean proportion correct to calculate average scores for students overall and by race/ethnicity and gender. All other results, including percentile and performance-level data, are shown beginning in 1978. See the Technical Notes for more information.

Overall, average scores in mathematics for 9- and 13-year-olds were higher in 2008 than in all previous assessment years ( gure 7). The average score for 9-year-olds in 2008 increased 4 points since 2004 and 24 points compared to 1973. Thirteen-year-olds scored 3 points5

higher than in 2004 and 15 points higher than in 1973. In contrast, the average score for 17-year-olds in 2008 was not signi cantly different from the scores in 2004 and 1973.

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 29

Page 30: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 8. Trend in NAEP mathematics percentile scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

See notes at end of figure.

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500Scale score

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

170

0

195* 196* 199*208* 208* 209* 208* 209* 218*

171* 173*177*

186* 185* 187* 187* 187*193

244* 243*246*

253* 253* 255* 255* 256* 263*264* 263* 264*

271* 271* 272* 274* 275*280*

220* 220* 223*231* 231* 233* 232* 234* 243*

220

197

264*

282

243

222

198

266

284

246

Age 9

90th

75th

50th

25th

10th

Percentile

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

Improvement for lower-, middle-, and higher-performing students varies by ageThe overall gain in mathematics since 2004 for 9-year-olds was also seen in increases for all but the lowest-performing students ( gure 8). While there was no signi cant change in the score for 9-year-olds performing at the 10th percentile from 2004 to 2008, the score in 2008 was 27 points higher than in 1978. Scores were higher in 2008 than in all previous assessment years for students at the 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles.

While the overall average score for 13-year-olds was higher in 2008 than in both 2004 and 1978, the results varied for students performing at different percentile levels. Scores

increased since 2004 for students at the 10th and 50th percentiles, but there were no signi cant changes for students who scored at the 25th, 75th, and 90th percentiles over the same period. Students performing at all ve percentile levels scored higher in 2008 compared to 1978.

As in the overall scale score results for 17-year-olds, there were no sig-ni cant changes in scores from 2004 to 2008 for students at any of the ve percentile levels. Scores for lower- and middle-performing 17-year-olds (at the 10th, 25th, and 50th percen-tiles) were higher in 2008 than in 1978.

30 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 31: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 8. Trend in NAEP mathematics percentile scores for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students—Continued

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500Scale score

330

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

210

0

238*246* 248* 250* 253* 253* 254* 254*

257

213*225*

230* 230* 233* 233* 233* 234234*

291* 292* 290* 292* 294* 296* 296* 298*303

313* 311* 309* 310* 312* 315* 314* 317*322

265* 269* 269* 271* 274* 275* 276*276*280*

261

238

304

322

282

261

237

305

323

283

Age 13

90th

75th

50th

25th

10th

Percentile

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1978–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500Scale score

360

350

340

330

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

0

276* 276*281* 283* 286 286 286 287

286

254* 256*263* 264* 267 267 267 268

266

325 321* 323 327 328 327 329 330*

327

345 341* 343 345 345 345 346 347*

343

301* 299* 301*305 308 306 308 309

306287

269

328

345

307

287

267

327

343

307

Age 17

90th

75th

50th

25th

10th

Percentile

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 31

Page 32: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

The skills and knowledge demonstrated by students performing at different points on the mathematics scale help provide additional context for understanding changes in students’ performance over time.

In each assessment year since 1978, at least 97 percent of 9-year-old students demonstrated the knowledge of simple arithmetic facts described for performance level 150 ( gure 9). The percentage of students performing at this level or above in 2008 was not signi cantly different from the percentage in 2004 but was higher than in 1978.

The beginning mathematical skills and understandings described for performance level 200 were demonstrated by 89 percent of 9-year-olds in 2008. This was an increase of 2 percentage points since 2004 and an increase of 19 percentage points in comparison to 1978.

In addition to demonstrating the skills and knowledge described for levels 150 and 200, students performing at or above performance level 250 demonstrated the ability to begin to apply basic mathematical operations. The percentage of 9-year-olds performing at or above this level was higher in 2008 than in both 2004 and 1978.

Mathematics Performance-Level DescriptionsLEVEL 350: Multistep Problem Solving and Algebra

Students at this level can apply a range of reasoning skills to solve multistep problems. They can solve routine problems in-volving fractions and percents, recognize properties of basic geometric figures, and work with exponents and square roots. They can solve a variety of two-step problems using variables, identify equivalent algebraic expressions, and solve linear equations and inequalities. They are developing an understanding of functions and coordinate systems.

LEVEL 300: Moderately Complex Procedures and ReasoningStudents at this level are developing an understanding of number systems. They can compute with decimals, simple fractions, and commonly encountered percents. They can identify geometric figures, measure lengths and angles, and calculate areas of rectangles. These students are also able to interpret simple inequalities, evaluate formulas, and solve simple linear equations. They can find averages, make decisions based on information drawn from graphs, and use logical reasoning to solve problems. They are developing the skills to operate with signed numbers, exponents, and square roots.

LEVEL 250: Numerical Operations and Beginning Problem SolvingStudents at this level have an initial understanding of the four basic operations. They are able to apply whole number addi-tion and subtraction skills to one-step word problems and money situations. In multiplication, they can find the product of a two-digit and a one-digit number. They can also compare information from graphs and charts and are developing an ability to analyze simple logical relations.

LEVEL 200: Beginning Skills and UnderstandingsStudents at this level have considerable understanding of two-digit numbers. They can add two-digit numbers but are still developing an ability to regroup in subtraction. They know some basic multiplication and division facts, recognize relations among coins, can read information from charts and graphs, and use simple measurement instruments. They are develop-ing some reasoning skills.

LEVEL 150: Simple Arithmetic FactsStudents at this level know some basic addition and subtraction facts, and most can add two-digit numbers without regrouping. They recognize simple situations in which addition and subtraction apply. They also are developing rudimentary classification skills.

Students’ understanding of basic operations improves compared to 1978The percentages of 13-year-olds performing at or above the 200 and 250 levels in 2008 were not signi cantly different from the percentages in 2004 but were higher than the percentages in 1978. In addition to demonstrat-ing the skills and knowledge described for the 200 and 250 levels, 30 percent of 13-year-olds were able to use the moderately complex procedures and reasoning indica-tive of performance described for level 300. Although not signi cantly different from the percentage in 2004, this percentage was higher than in 1978.

Ninety-six percent of 17-year-olds performed at or above level 250 in 2008, and 59 percent performed at or above level 300. These percentages were not signi cantly dif-ferent from the percentages in 2004 but were higher than in 1978.

Six percent of 17-year-olds in 2008 demonstrated the skills associated with multistep problem solving and algebra described at level 350. This percentage was not signi cantly different from the percentages in 2004 or 1978.

32 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 33: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 9. Trend in NAEP mathematics performance-level results for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1978–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

1978

PercentAge 9

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

97*

70*

20*

1982

97*

71*

19*

1986

98*

74*

21*

1990

99

81*

28*

1992

99

81*

28*

1994

99

82*

30*

1996

99

82*

30*

1999

99

83*

31*

2004

9989

42

2004 Year

99

87*

41*

2008

9989

44 Level 150 or aboveLevel 200 or aboveLevel 250 or above

Level 150 or aboveLevel 200 or aboveLevel 250 or above

Original assessment format

Revised assessment format

1978

PercentAge 13

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

95*

65*

18*

1982

98

71*

17*

1986

99

73*

16*

1990

99

75*

17*

1992

99

78*

19*

1994

99

78*

21*

1996

99*

79*

21*

1999

99

79*

23*

2004

99

83

29

2004 Year

98

81

28

2008

98

83

30

Level 200 or aboveLevel 250 or aboveLevel 300 or above

Level 200 or aboveLevel 250 or aboveLevel 300 or above

Original assessment format

Revised assessment format

1978

PercentAge 17

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

92*

52*

7

1982

93*

49*

5

1986

96

52*

7

1990

96

56

7

1992

97 97 97 97 97

59

7

1994

59

7

1996

60

7

1999

61

8*

2004 2004 Year

59

7

96

58

6

2008

96

59

6

Level 250 or aboveLevel 300 or aboveLevel 350

Level 250 or aboveLevel 300 or aboveLevel 350

Original assessment format

Revised assessment format

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 33

Page 34: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 10. Trend in White – Black NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

0

224* 224* 227*235* 235* 237* 237* 239*

White

192* 195*202*

208* 208* 212* 212* 211*221

245*

Black

Age 9

Score gap

32* 29 2527 27 25 25 28

24

224

247

23

35*

190*

225*

2008 Year

224

250

26

1973

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment formatExtrapolated data

See notes at end of figure.

Black students make greater gains than White students compared to 1973At age 9, the average mathematics score increased from 2004 to 2008 for White students but showed no signi cant change for Black stu-dents ( gure 10). In comparison to 1973, scores in 2008 were 25 points higher for White students and 34 points higher for Black students.

At age 13, neither White nor Black students’ scores showed a signif- icant change from 2004 to 2008. However, comparing 1973 to 2008,

White students gained 16 points compared to 34 points for Black students.

Similarly, at age 17, the score for neither White nor Black stu-dents showed a signi cant change between 2004 and 2008, while the score was 4 points higher for White students in 2008 compared to 1973, and 17 points higher for Black stu-dents over the same period.

No significant change in White – Black score gaps since 2004While the score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signi cant change between 2004 and 2008, the gaps did narrow in 2008 compared

to 1973. In comparison to the gaps in 1973, the White – Black gaps in 2008 narrowed by 9 points at age 9, by 18 points at age 13, and by 14 points at age 17.

34 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 35: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Black includes African American. The White and Black race categories exclude Hispanic origin. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1973–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

FIGURE 10. Trend in White – Black NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students—Continued

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

0

272* 274* 274* 276* 279* 281* 281* 283*White

230*240*

249* 249* 250* 252* 252* 251*257

287

262

288

Black

Age 13

Score gap

42*34* 24 27 29 29 29 32

3027

46*

228*

274*

2008 Year

262

290

28

1973

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

330

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

0

306* 304* 308* 309* 312 312 313 315 White

268* 272*279*

289 286 286 286 283 284

311

285

313

2008 Year

287

314

Black

Age 17

Score gap

40* 38* 32*29 21 26 27 27 31* 28 27 26

270*

310*

1973

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment formatExtrapolated data

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment formatExtrapolated data

About Student DemographicsEach assessment year, NAEP gathers information on student demographics. For the mathematics assessment, the percentages of students assessed by race/ethnicity are available going back to 1978. Because results for Asian/Pacific Islander students were not reportable for some of the previous assessment years, they are not included in this report. In the assessments administered between 1978 and 2004, students were assigned to a racial/ethnic category based on the assessment administrator’s observation. One of the changes introduced as part of the revised assessment format in 2004 was the reporting of students’ race/ethnicity based on information collected from school records (see the Technical Notes for more information).

Changes in student population over time show decreases in the percentages of White students in 2008 compared to 1978 at all three ages. In contrast, the percentages of Hispanic students increased, and the percentages of Black students showed no significant changes over the same period of time. For example, the percentage of White 9-year-olds decreased from 79 percent in 1978 to 54 percent in 2008, and the percentage of Hispanic 9-year-olds increased from 5 to 23 percent over the same period (see appendix table A-2).

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 35

Page 36: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 11. Trend in White – Hispanic NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

0

224* 224* 227*235* 235* 237* 237* 239*

White

203* 204* 205*214* 212* 210* 215* 213*

229

245*

Hispanic

Age 9

Score gap

21 20 2121 23* 27* 22* 26*

16

230

247

18

2008 Year

234

250

16

23*

202*

225*

1973

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment formatExtrapolated data

See notes at end of figure.

Hispanic students make greater gains than White students compared to 1973At all three ages, there were no signi cant changes in scores for Hispanic students since 2004, but scores were higher in 2008 than in 1973 ( gure 11). Compared to 1973, gains for Hispanic students

of 32 points, 29 points, and 16 points at ages 9, 13, and 17, respectively, were larger than the gains made by their White coun-terparts over the same period of time.

No significant change in White – Hispanic score gaps since 2004For all three age groups, there were no signi cant changes in the White – Hispanic score gaps from 2004 to 2008. However, when com-pared to 1973, the gaps in 2008 narrowed by 7 points at age 9 and by 12 points at ages 13 and 17.

36 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 37: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 11. Trend in White – Hispanic NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students—Continued

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

300

290

280

260

250

240

230

220

0

White

238*

252* 254* 255* 259* 256* 256*259*

264 Hispanic

Age 13

Score gap270

272* 274* 274* 276* 279* 281* 281* 283* 287

265

288

34*22 19 22 20 25 25 24

2323

35*

239*

274*

2008 Year

268

290

23

1973

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. Hispanic includes Latino. The White race category excludes Hispanic origin. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1973–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

320

310

300

280

270

260

250

0

White

276* 277*283* 284*

292 292291 293 292 Hispanic

Age 17

Score gap

290

330

306* 304* 308* 309* 312 312 313 315 311

289

313

30* 27* 2426 20 22 21 22 1924

33*

277*

310*

2008 Year

293

314

21

1973

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment formatExtrapolated data

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment formatExtrapolated data

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 37

Page 38: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 12. Trend in Male – Female NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students

See notes at end of figure.

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

260

250

240

230

220

210

200

190

180

0

220*220* 221* 222*230*

228* 230* 229* 231*239*240* Male

217*218* 217* 222*229*

231* 232* 233* 233*

2008 Year

242243 Female

Score gap1

Age 9

1973

240*243

–3–2 –4 # –1 2 2 4* 2 –1–13

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment formatExtrapolated data

Progress for male and female students varies by ageThe overall improvement in mathe-matics for 9-year-olds was also seen in the results for both male and female students. Both male and female 9-year-olds scored higher in 2008 than in any previous assess-ment year ( gure 12).

At age 13, the pattern of improve-ment was mixed. Compared to 2004, the average mathematics score for male students was higher

in 2008, but the score for female students did not show a signi cant change. Average scores for both male and female students were higher in 2008 than in 1973.

At age 17, the average mathemat-ics scores for both male and female students in 2008 were not signi -cantly different from their scores in 2004 or 1973.

No significant change in most gender gapsWhile there was no signi cant difference in the average mathe- matics scores for male and female 9-year-olds in 2008, male students did score higher than female students at ages 13 and 17. At age 13, the male – female gap in

2008 was not signi cantly different when compared to 2004 but was larger than in 1973. At age 17, the gender score gap in 2008 was not signi cantly different from the gaps in previous assessment years.

38 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 39: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 12. Trend in Male – Female NAEP mathematics average scores and score gaps for 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students—Continued

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year

500Scale score

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

0

264*

269* 270* 271*Male

274* 276* 276* 277*279*

265*265*

267*268* 268* 270* 272* 273* 272* 274* 278

283

279 Female

Age 13

284

279

1973

Score gap1–1*–2* 1 2 2 2 3 4 3 413

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment formatExtrapolated data

# Rounds to zero.* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.1 Negative numbers indicate that the average score for male students was lower than the score for female students.NOTE: Score gaps are calculated based on differences between unrounded average scores. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1973–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

330

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

0

304* 301* 305* 306 Male309 309 310 310 307

297* 296* 299* 303 305 304 305 307* 304

308

305

309

303 Female

Age 17

301

309

2008 Year1973

Score gap78 6 5 3 4 4 5 3 533

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment formatExtrapolated data

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 39

Page 40: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Score increases for 17-year-olds whose parents did not finish high schoolBoth 13- and 17-year-old students were asked to indicate the highest level of education of at least one of their parents. See the Technical Notes for more information about the questions that students were asked. Students at age 9 were not asked about their parents’ education level because their responses in previous NAEP assessments were not reliable.

In the 2008 assessment, 48 percent of 13-year-olds and 46 percent of 17-year-olds indicated that at least one parent graduated from college (see appendix table A-2). At both ages, these percentages were higher in 2008 compared to 1978.

While the average mathematics score for 17-year-olds overall did not change signi cantly since 2004, the score for students who indicated that their parents did

not nish high school was higher in 2008 than in 2004 and 1978 ( gure 13). There were no signi cant changes in average scores in 2008 compared to 2004 or 1978 for all the other student-reported levels of parental education.

At age 13, there were no signi cant changes in average scores since 2004 regardless of the student-reported level of parental education. However, average scores were higher in 2008 than in 1978 across all student-reported levels of parental education.

Overall, higher average mathematics scores were associated with higher levels of parental education in 2008. At both ages, students who reported that at least one parent graduated from college scored higher than students who reported lower levels of parental education.

40 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 41: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

FIGURE 13. Trend in NAEP mathematics average scores for 13- and 17-year-old students, by highest level of parental education

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

300

290

280

270

260

250

240

230

220

0

284* 282* 280* 280* 283* 285* 283* 286* 289Some education after high school273*

274*275* 277* 278* 277* 277* 279* 282Graduated from college

263* 263* 263* 263* 263* 266* 267* 270264* Graduated from high school

245* 251* 252* 253* 256* 255* 254* 256* 263

292283271

262

2008 Year

291285

272268 Did not finish high school

Age 13

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1978–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

305

1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004

500Scale score

330

320

310

300

290

280

270

260

250

0

317312* 314 316 316 318 317 317 315

Some education after high school

305

304 305

308 308 305 307 308Graduated from college

294 293293 294 298 295 297 294299Graduated from high school

280* 279* 279*285 285 284* 281*

289

287*

306

317

295

287

2008 Year

316

306296292 Did not finish high school

Age 17

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

Revised assessment formatOriginal assessment format

About Parents’ Education LevelChanges in the student population since 1978 show a decrease in the percentages of students who reported that neither parent had finished high school, and a corresponding increase in the percentages of students who reported that at least one parent had graduated from college. For example, the percentage of 17-year-olds who reported that neither parent had finished high school decreased from 13 percent in 1978 to 9 percent in 2008. During the same time period, the percentage of 17-year-olds who reported that at least one parent had graduated from college increased from 32 percent to 46 percent. Similar patterns are evident among 13-year-olds as well (see appendix table A-2).

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 41

Page 42: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

School Participation in NAEPResults by the type of school that students attended are available for the long-term trend mathematics assessments back to 1978. Participation rates fell below the required standard for reporting results for 9- and 13-year-olds attending private schools in 2004, for 17-year-olds attending private schools in all the assessment years, and for 17-year-olds attending Catholic schools in 2004. In 1996, results for 17-year-old students attending Catholic schools are not reported because the sample size was insufficient to permit a reliable estimate. See the section on School and Student Participation Rates in the Technical Notes for more information.

Mathematics scores higher than in 1978 for public and Catholic school students at all three agesIn 2008, between 90 and 92 percent of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds attended public schools, and between 4 and 5 percent attended Catholic schools (see appendix table A-2). While the percentages of students attending public schools have not changed signi cantly in com-parison to 1978 at any of the three ages, the percentage of 9-year-olds attending Catholic schools was lower in 2008 than in 1978.

The average mathematics score for public school stu-dents increased by 3 points at age 9 from 2004 to 2008, with no signi cant changes in the scores for students at ages 13 and 17 over the same time period (table 5). The scores for public school students at all three ages were higher in 2008 compared to 1978.

Results for students attending private schools6 showed an increase in the average mathematics scores from 1978 to 2008 for 9- and 13-year-olds. Scores for Catholic school students were higher in 2008 than in 1978 at all three ages.

In 2008, public school students scored lower than their private school counterparts at ages 9 and 13. Public school students scored lower than Catholic school stu-dents at all three ages in 2008.

6 Private schools include Catholic schools.

42 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 43: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Age group and type of school 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 20041 20042 2008

Age 9

Public 217* 217* 220* 229* 228* 229* 230* 231* 241 239* 242

Private 230* 232* 232* 238* 242* 245* 239* 242* ‡ ‡ 252

Catholic 230* 232* 233* 235* 241* 243* 239* 241* 242* 247 251

Age 13

Public 263* 267* 269* 269* 272* 273* 273* 274* 280 278 280

Private 279* 281* 276* 280* 283* 285* 286* 288* ‡ ‡ 295

Catholic 279* 280* 273* 279* 280* 283* 285 288 289 289 293

Age 173

Public 300* 297* 301* 304 305 304 306 307 306 304 305

Catholic 309* 309* 314 311 320 317 ‡ 320 ‡ ‡ 317

TABLE 5. Average scores in NAEP mathematics, by student age group and type of school: Various years, 1978–2008

‡ Reporting standards not met.* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008. 1 Original assessment format. Results prior to 2004 are also from the original assessment format.2 Revised assessment format. Results after 2004 are also from the revised assessment format.3 For students at age 17, results are not shown for private schools because the minimum participation guidelines for reporting were not met.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1978–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 43

Page 44: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Regular mathematics

Other

Algebra

Pre-algebra

280

Type of mathematicstaken

Scale score

5000 300280270260 290220 230 240 250

Age 13

282

297

268

FIGURE 14.Average scores in NAEP mathematics for 13-year-old students, by type of mathematics they have taken during the school year: 2008

NOTE: An average score is not shown for students who selected the “not taking mathematics” response because the sample size was insufficient to permit a reliable estimate.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

Geometry

Other

Pre-calculus orcalculus

Second-year algebraor trigonometry

281

295

333

307

Pre-algebra or generalmathematics

First-year algebra

270

280

Highest-level mathematicscourse taken

Scale score

5000 330 340310300290 320250 260 270 280

Age 17

FIGURE 15.Average scores in NAEP mathematics for 17-year-old students, by highest-level mathematics course they have ever taken: 2008

NOTE: The “pre-algebra or general mathematics” response category includes “pre-algebra or introduc-tion to algebra” and “general, business, or consumer mathematics” and students who did not take any of the listed courses. The “other” response category includes students for whom the highest-level mathematics course could not be determined due to missing or inconsistent responses.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

Higher-level courses associated with higher scores

At age 17, students were asked, “Counting what you are taking now, have you ever taken any of the following mathematics courses?”

General, business, or consumer mathematicsPre-algebra or introduction to algebraFirst-year algebraSecond-year algebraGeometryTrigonometryPre-calculus or calculus

The highest-level mathematics course was determined from the student’s responses to the question above.

Higher levels of mathematics coursetaking were associ-ated with higher mathematics scores in 2008 ( gure 15). For example, students who had taken pre-calculus or calculus had a higher average score than students who had taken second-year algebra or trigonometry. Students whose highest-level mathematics course was pre-algebra or general mathematics scored lower than students in the other coursetaking categories.

Students at ages 13 and 17 responded to questions about the mathematics courses they were currently taking or had taken. Responses for age 13 are available beginning in 1986 and for age 17 in 1978.

At age 13, students were asked, “What kind of mathe- matics are you taking this year?” They chose from the following options:

I am not taking mathematics this yearRegular mathematicsPre-algebraAlgebraOther

Taking higher-level mathematics courses was associated with higher scores on the long-term trend mathematics assessment in 2008 ( gure 14). Students at age 13 who were enrolled in algebra classes scored higher on average than those in pre-algebra, and

students in pre-algebra scored higher than their counterparts taking regular mathematics courses.

44 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 45: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

1978

PercentAge 17

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

01982 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 2004 20081986

4*

37*

20*

16

6*

17*

3*

39*

22*

14*

5*

16*

2

40*

18*

16

7*

18*

2

44*

15*

15

8*

15*

2

45*

13*

17

10*

14*

2

47*

9*

15

13*

15*

1

50

8*

16

13*

12*

2

51

7*

16

13*

11*

1

53

4

16

17

9

1

3Year

52

17

19

7

FIGURE 16.Trend in percentage of 13-year-old students in NAEP mathematics, by type of mathematics course they have taken during the school year

# Rounds to zero.* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.NOTE: Results for 1986-2004 are from the original assessment format, and results for 2008 are from the revised assessment format (2004 revised assessment format results are not available). Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1986–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

FIGURE 17. Trend in percentage of 17-year-old students in NAEP mathematics, by highest-level mathematics course they have ever taken

* Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008.NOTE: The “pre-algebra or general mathemat-ics” response category includes “pre-algebra or introduction to algebra” and “general, business, or consumer mathematics” and students who did not take any of the listed courses. The “other” response category includes students for whom the highest-level mathematics course could not be determined due to missing or inconsistent responses. Results for 1978–2004 are from the original assessment format, and results for 2008 are from the revised assessment format (2004 revised assessment format results are not available). Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1978–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

1986

PercentAge 13

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

01990 1994 1996 1999 2004 2008 Year1992

16*

19*

5* 5* 5* 4* 6 764*

15*

23*

61* 57*

#* #* #* #* #* #

29

32

33

22*

34

37*

1 1

20*

35

39*

20*

32

43*

17*

27*

51*

31

30

32

Increasing percentages of students taking higher-level mathematics

Similar to the pattern for 13-year-olds, the percentages of 17-year-olds taking higher-level courses increased ( gure 17). A comparison of 2008 to 1978 shows that a greater percentage of 17-year-olds indicated that they had taken pre-calculus or calculus. The percentage of 17-year-olds who had taken second-year algebra or

The trend in the coursetaking at age 13 shows that higher percentages of students were taking higher-level mathematics courses in 2008 compared to 1986 ( gure 16). The percentage of 13-year-olds taking

algebra increased from 16 to 30 percent, and the percent-age taking pre-algebra increased from 19 to 32 percent. The percentage of students taking regular mathematics decreased from 61 percent in 1986 to 31 percent in 2008.

trigonometry increased from 37 percent in 1978 to 52 percent in 2008. The percentage of students who indicated that the highest level of mathematics they had taken was pre-algebra or general mathematics, or rst-year algebra, decreased over the same time period.

Other

Pre-calculusor calculus

Second-yearalgebra ortrigonometry

First-yearalgebra

Geometry

Pre-algebraor generalmathematics

Other

Algebra

Pre-algebra

Regularmathematics

Not taking mathematics

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 45

Page 46: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

For More InformationAdditional sample questions from the 2008 long-term trend assessments can be found at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/itmrls.

Sample QuestionsBeginning in 2004, as a result of modi cations to the long-term trend mathematics assessment, it became possible to share questions with the public. Once again, some of the questions that have been administered to students since the early 1970s are being released. These released questions will not be administered in future NAEP long-term trend assessments.

Topics in the NAEP long-term trend mathematics assessment include numbers and numeration; variables and relationships; shape, size, and position; measurement; and probability and statistics. The distribution of assess-ment items from these topics differs across the age levels, with more emphasis placed on topics relating to numbers at ages 9 and 13 than at age 17, and more emphasis placed on topics relating to variables at age 17 than at ages 9 and 13.

Three sample mathematics questions for each age group are presented in this section. The response options for multiple-choice questions are provided as the students saw them, and the oval for the correct answer is lled in. All constructed-response questions in the long-term trend mathematics assessment were scored as correct or incorrect, and the correct response is shown on the answer line.

In the sample questions that follow, the percentages of students who answered correctly overall and within each performance level are shown in the tables below each sample. For example, 44 percent of age 9 students answered the rst mathematics sample question correctly, while 16 percent of age 9 students at performance level 150 answered the question correctly (see facing page).

46 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 47: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

" !#! $!

%!

’ *+) . ( ) - &, / -

A

B

C

D

Sample question 3 asked students to read a scale on a number line presented in the context of a bicycle speedometer. To answer the ques-tion, the student had to determine the value corresponding to a point halfway between the points marked at 10 and 20 miles per hour.

The bicycle speedometer above shows about what speed?

10 miles per hour

15 miles per hour

20 miles per hour

45 miles per hourSample question 2 assessed students’ knowledge of operations with whole numbers. Add 38 74 66 + 75 ANSWER: ________________253

Sample question 1 required students to demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the relationship between parts and a whole using fraction vocabulary.

How many fifths are equal to one whole?

A

B

C

D

15

1

4

5

Percentage of correct responses for 9-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 150 Level 150 Level 200 Level 250

58 ‡ 19 52 74‡ Reporting standards not met.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

Percentage of correct responses for 9-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 150 Level 150 Level 200 Level 250

44 ‡ 16 29 65‡ Reporting standards not met.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

Percentage of correct responses for 9-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 150 Level 150 Level 200 Level 250

85 ‡ 42 84 96‡ Reporting standards not met.SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

Sample Mathematics Questions

AGE 9

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 47

Page 48: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Sample question 6 required students to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the de nition of a polygon. A polygon is a “closed” plane gure consisting of line segments.

Which figure is NOT a POLYGON?

A

B

C

D

Sample question 4 required students to apply multistep arithmetic operations with decimals to a real-world situation.

Sally bought two tickets to a movie. Each ticket cost $4.25. She paid for the tickets with a $10 bill. How much change did she get?

$5.75

$5.25

$4.25

$1.75

$1.50

A

B

C

D

E

Percentage of correct responses for 13-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 200 Level 200 Level 250 Level 300

66 13 31 67 87SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

1.36

Sample question 5 asked students to demonstrate the ability to nd a decimal representation of a number equivalent to a given fractional representation.

Write as a decimal.

136100

= ________________

Percentage of correct responses for 13-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 200 Level 200 Level 250 Level 300

47 7 14 38 81SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

Percentage of correct responses for 13-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 200 Level 200 Level 250 Level 300

85 50 76 83 94SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

Sample Mathematics Questions

AGE 13

48 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 49: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Sample question 9 asked students to solve a multistep problem involving the perimeter and area of a square.

The perimeter of a square is 36 centimeters. What is the area of the square?

6 square cm

9 square cm

18 square cm

81 square cm

A

B

C

D

Sample question 7 required students to demonstrate the ability to order and compare real numbers.

Which number is between 1.8 and 1.9?

0.189

0.198

1.83

1.93

A

B

C

D

14

Sample question 8 asked students to demonstrate procedural knowledge by evaluating a function for a given value.

If f (z) = z + 8, what is the value of f (6)?

ANSWER: ________________

Percentage of correct responses for 17-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 250 Level 250 Level 300 Level 350

83 52 75 90 93SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

Percentage of correct responses for 17-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 250 Level 250 Level 300 Level 350

59 11 29 79 98SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

Percentage of correct responses for 17-year-old students at each performance level: 2008

Overall Below level 250 Level 250 Level 300 Level 350

65 16 41 78 98SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessment.

Sample Mathematics Questions

AGE 17

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 49

Page 50: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Technical NotesSampling and WeightingThe target population for the 2008 NAEP long-term trend assessments consisted of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students enrolled in public and private schools nation-wide. Eligibility for the age 9 and age 13 samples was based on the calendar year: students in the age 9 sample were 9 years old on January 1, 2008, with birth months January 1998 through December 1998, and students in the age 13 sample were 13 years old on January 1, 2008, with birth months January 1994 through December 1994. Students eligible for the age 17 sample had to be 17 years old on October 1, 2008, with birth months October 1990 through September 1991.

The national samples for students at ages 9, 13, and 17 were chosen using a multistage design that involved drawing students from the sampled public and private schools across the country. Within each age, the results from the assessed students were combined to provide accurate estimates of the overall performance of stu-dents in the nation.

Each school that participated in the assessment, and each student assessed, represents a portion of the population of interest. Results are weighted to make appropriate inferences between the student samples and the respective populations from which they are drawn. Sampling weights account for the dispropor-tionate representation of some groups in the selected sample. This includes the oversampling of schools with high concentrations of students from certain minority groups and the lower sampling rates of students who attend very small private schools.

Scaling InterpretationAlthough the reading and mathematics long-term trend assessments were initially scaled across the three ages the rst time each subject was reported on a 0–500 scale, the results for subsequent years were scaled within each age group. Over the years, as the current assessment data are further removed from the base year, cross-age comparisons become weaker be-cause the number of test questions initially used to link the three ages are relatively small and some have been

released to the public, and the performance patterns among racial/ethnic and other student groups upon which the original scale was based may have changed over time. Therefore, even though comparing results between the three ages may be appropriate for the overall results, comparisons for subgroups are not as strongly supported by the data and are discouraged.

School and Student Participation RatesTo ensure unbiased samples and to meet reporting requirements established by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) and the National Assess- ment Governing Board, school participation rates need to be at least 85 percent before substitute schools are added. The weighted national school participation rates for ages 9, 13, and 17 were 96, 95, and 90 percent, respectively. Student participation rates were 95, 94, and 88 percent, respectively, for each of the three age samples in both reading and mathematics.

Initial participation rates needed to be 70 percent or higher to report results separately for private schools. While the school participation rate for private schools met the standards in 2008 for reporting at ages 9 and 13 (72 and 79 percent, respectively), it fell below the standard at age 17 (61 percent). Participation rates were high enough for reporting results in 2008 for Catholic school students at all three ages (88, 94, and 76 percent at ages 9, 13, and 17, respectively); therefore, separate results for Catholic schools are included in this report.

The 1973 Mathematics ResultsThe mathematics trend scale was developed in 1986 and included previous mathematics trend assessments. However, because the 1973 mathematics assessment had too few questions in common with the assessments that followed, results from the 1973 assessment were placed on the same 0 to 500 mathematics scale using mean proportion correct extrapolation. Estimates were extrapolated from the data so that average mathematics scores could be reported for the nation and by race/ethnicity and gender at all three ages in 1973.

50 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 51: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

The extrapolated estimates were obtained by assuming that, within a given age level, the relationship between the logit transformation of a student group’s average percentage of correct responses for common questions and its scale score average was linear, and that the same linear relationship held for all assessment years and for all student groups within that age level. Because of the need to extrapolate the average scale scores, caution should be used in interpreting the pattern of trends across those assessment years. For more information, see Appendix A of NAEP 2004 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Student Performance in Reading and Mathematics, available at http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2005464.

Accommodations and ExclusionsPrior to 2004, no testing accommodations were allowed for students with disabilities (SD) and English language learners (ELL) selected to participate in the long-term trend assessments. One of the changes introduced as part of the 2004 assessments was the use of accommo-dations, such as extra testing time or individual rather than group administration for students who needed such accommodations to participate in the assessments. The results for the 2008 long-term trend assessments are based on administration procedures that also allowed accommodations. Appropriate accommodations were determined by having the school of cial most knowl-edgeable about the student identi ed as requiring an accommodation complete a questionnaire guided by a decision tree. This procedure has been used in NAEP since 2005. Some accommodations allowed in the mathematics assessment were not allowed for reading, such as bilingual booklets and reading the test aloud to students.

Exclusion rates were generally lower when accommoda-tions were permitted. In 2004, between 7 and 8 percent of students selected to take the original format of the long-term trend assessments were excluded when accom- modations were not permitted, and between 3 and 5 percent selected to take the revised format were exclud-ed when accommodations were permitted (see appendix table A-3). In 2008, when accommodations were also

available, the percentages of SD and/or ELL students excluded were 4 percent in reading and 3 to 4 percent in mathematics (see appendix table A-4).

Race/EthnicityResults are presented for students in different racial/ ethnic groups according to the following mutually exclu-sive categories: White, Black, and Hispanic. (Note that reading results for Hispanic students were not available prior to 1975.) Because results for Asian/Paci c Islander students were not reportable for some of the previous assessment years, they have not been included in the long-term trend reports. Results for those years in which they could be reported are available in the NAEP Data Explorer at http://www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/. Results for American Indian (including Alaska Native) students are not reported separately be-cause there were too few students sampled in this group for the results to be statistically reliable. Data for all students, regardless of whether their racial/ethnic group was reported separately, were included in computing the overall national results.

Results by students’ race/ethnicity are presented in this report based on information collected from two differ-ent sources:

Observed Race/Ethnicity. Prior to 2004, students partici-pating in the long-term trend assessment were assigned to a racial/ethnic category based on the assessment administrator’s observation. The results for the 2004 original assessment format and all previous assessment years are based on observed race/ethnicity.

School-Reported Race/Ethnicity. Data about students’ race/ethnicity from school records were collected in 2004 but were not collected for any of the previous NAEP long-term trend assessments. The results pre-sented in this report for the 2004 revised assessment format and for 2008 are based on school-reported race/ethnicity.

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 51

Page 52: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

Parents’ Education LevelStudents were asked to indicate the extent of schooling for each of their parents, choosing among the following options:

Did not nish high schoolGraduated from high schoolHad some education after high schoolGraduated from collegeI don’t know

The response indicating the highest level of education for either parent was selected for reporting. The ques-tions were presented only to the students in the age 13 and age 17 samples.

While students in previous long-term trend assess-ments were asked about their parents’ education level, the wording of the question in the revised format of the reading assessments administered in 2004 and 2008 was different from previous years. Consequently, trend results are reported only for the mathematics assessment.

Interpreting Statistical SignificanceComparisons over time or between groups are based on statistical tests that consider both the size of the differ-ences and associated variability (i.e., standard errors). Standard errors are margins of error, and estimates based on smaller groups are likely to have larger mar-gins of error. The size of the standard errors may also be in:uenced by other factors such as how representa-tive the students assessed are of the entire population. When an estimate has a large standard error, a numeri-cal difference that seems large may not be statistically signi cant. Differences of the same magnitude may or may not be statistically signi cant depending upon the size of the standard errors of the statistics. Standard errors for the NAEP scores and percentages presented in this report are available at http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/lttdata/.

The usual test for the statistical signi cance of a differ-ence assumes that only one comparison is being made. A small chance necessarily exists that the test mistakenly identi es a difference as real. When several comparisons

are made concurrently, the likelihood of nding results that are mistakenly considered signi cant increases. The Benjamini-Hochberg False Discovery Rate procedure controls the rate of false discoveries and reduces the chance that a set of statistical tests indicates a difference while no actual difference exists.

The reader is cautioned against making simple causal inferences between student performance and the other educational variables discussed in this report. A statistically signi cant relationship between a variable and measures of student performance does not imply that the variable causes differences in how well students perform. The relationship may be in:uenced by a number of other variables not accounted for in this report, such as family income, parental involvement, or students’ attitudes.

Setting the Performance LevelsTo aid the interpretation of the NAEP long-term trend results, the reading and mathematics scales were divided into ve successive levels of performance, and a “scale anchoring” process was used to de ne what it meant to score at each of these levels. The levels for each scale were set at 150, 200, 250, 300, and 350. For each of these ve levels, questions were identi ed that were likely to be answered correctly by students performing at that level on the scale and much less likely to be answered correctly by students performing at the next lower level. The guidelines used to select these questions were as fol-lows: students at a given level must have at least a speci- ed probability of success with the questions (usually 65 to 80 percent), while students at the next lower level must have a much lower probability of success (that is, the difference in probabilities between adjacent levels must exceed 30 percent). Content specialists for each subject examined these empirically selected question sets and used their professional judgment to characterize each level. The reading scale anchoring was conducted on the basis of the 1984 assessment, and the scale anchoring for mathematics trend reporting was based on the 1986 assessment.

More information on the long-term trend assessment can be found at http://nationsreportcard.gov/ltt_2008/.

52 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 53: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

— Not available. ‡ Reporting standards not met. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008. 1 Original assessment format. Results prior to 2004 are also from the original assessment format. 2 Revised assessment format. Results after 2004 are also from the revised assessment format. 3 For students at age 17, results are not shown for private schools under the type of school category because the minimum participation guidelines for reporting were not met. NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and “other” includes Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and unclassified. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1971–2008 Long-Term Trend Reading Assessments.

TABLE A-1. Percentage of students assessed in NAEP reading, by age group and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1971–2008

Age group and characteristics 1971 1975 1980 1984 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 20041 20042 2008Age 9

Race/ethnicityWhite 84* 80* 79* 75* 75* 74* 74* 76* 71* 69* 59 59 56Black 14 13 14 16 16 16 16 15 17 18 17 16 16Hispanic — 5* 6* 7* 6* 6* 7* 6* 8* 9* 17 17 20Other 2* 2* 1* 2* 3* 4* 3* 4* 4* 4* 7 7 7

GenderMale 50 50 50 50 50 51 51 50 49 49 50 51 50Female 50 50 50 50 50 49 49 50 51 51 50 49 50

Type of schoolPublic — — 89 88 88 92 88 89 86* 88 89 89 90Private — — 11 12 12 8 12 11 14* 12 ‡ ‡ 10

Catholic — — 9* 9* 8 5 9* 6 7 6 6 6 5Age 13

Race/ethnicityWhite 84* 81* 80* 77* 76* 73* 73* 74* 71* 70* 64* 63* 57Black 15 13 13 14 15 15 16 15 15 16 15 16 16Hispanic — 5* 6* 7* 6* 8* 7* 8* 9* 10* 16* 16* 21Other 1* 2* 1* 2* 2* 3* 3* 3* 5 3* 5* 5 7

GenderMale 50 50 49* 51 50 50 49 51 49* 49 49 51 51Female 50 50 51* 49 50 50 51 49 51* 51 51 49 49

Type of schoolPublic — — 88 89 89 88 86 89 89 87 92 90 90Private — — 12 11 11 12 14 11 11 13 ‡ ‡ 10

Catholic — — 9* 9* 9 7 7 9* 6 7 5 5 5

Age 173

Race/ethnicityWhite 87* 84* 83* 77* 77* 74* 75* 73* 72* 72* 68* 70* 59Black 11 11* 12 14 15 16 15 15 15 14 12 12* 15Hispanic — 3* 4* 7* 6* 7* 8* 8* 9* 9* 14* 13* 18Other 1* 1* 1* 2* 2* 4* 3* 3* 4* 4* 5* 6* 7

GenderMale 49 49 51 51 48 50 52 50 51 52 49 50 50Female 51 51 49 49 52 50 48 50 49 48 51 50 50

Type of schoolPublic — — 93 90 88 93 92 89 92 90 91 90 92Catholic — — 6 6 11 3 6 7 5 7 ‡ ‡ 4

Appendix Tables

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 53

Page 54: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

TABLE A-2. Percentage of students assessed in NAEP mathematics, by age group and selected student and school characteristics: Various years, 1978–2008

Age group and characteristics 1978 1982 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 20041 20042 2008

Age 93 Race/ethnicity

White 79* 79* 77* 74* 75* 75* 72* 70* 60 59* 54Black 14 14 15 16 16 15 16 18 15 16 16Hispanic 5* 5* 6* 5* 6* 6* 8* 8* 18 18* 23Other 1* 2* 2* 4* 3* 4* 5 4* 7 7 7

GenderMale 50 49 50 49 49* 49 50 49 49 50 50Female 50 51 50 51 51* 51 50 51 51 50 50

Type of schoolPublic 89 86 85 89 87* 88 87* 88 88 90 90Private 11 14 15 11 13* 12 13* 12 ‡ ‡ 10

Catholic 10* 9* 12* 7 9* 7 9* 8 6 5 5Age 13

Race/ethnicityWhite 80* 79* 77* 73* 74* 73* 71* 71* 66* 62 58Black 13 14 14 16 16 15 15 15 15 16 15Hispanic 6* 5* 7* 7* 7* 8* 9* 10* 15* 17 21Other 1* 2* 2* 4* 3* 4* 4 4* 4* 5 6

GenderMale 50 50 50 50 50 49 48 50 48 49 50Female 50 50 50 50 50 51 52 50 52 51 50

Parents’ highest education levelDid not finish high school 12* 11* 8 8 6 6 6* 6 7 7 7Graduated from high school 33* 34* 31* 27* 23* 23* 23* 21* 19* 18 17Some education after high school 14 14 16 17* 18* 17* 17* 17* 15 15 14Graduated from college 26* 32* 38* 41* 44 46 45 48 47 47 48Unknown 15 9* 8* 8* 8* 8* 10* 9* 12* 13 14

Type of schoolPublic 91 89 96* 90 88 88 89 88 91 92 90Private 9 11 4* 10 12 12 11 12 ‡ ‡ 10

Catholic 9 8 3 7 8 9* 7 7 6 4 5Age 174

Race/ethnicityWhite 83* 81* 78* 73* 75* 73* 71* 72* 69* 69* 59Black 12 13 14 16 15 15 15 15 13 12 14Hispanic 4* 5* 5* 7* 7* 9* 9* 10* 14* 14* 19Other 1* 2* 3* 4* 3* 3* 4* 4* 5* 5* 7

GenderMale 49* 49* 49 49 51 49 50 48 48 50 50Female 51* 51* 51 51 49 51 50 52 52 50 50

Parents’ highest education levelDid not finish high school 13* 14* 8 8 8 7* 6* 7* 9 8 9Graduated from high school 33* 33* 28* 26* 21* 22* 21 20 19 19 19Some education after high school 16* 18* 24 24 25* 24 24 23 22 22 22Graduated from college 32* 32* 37* 39* 43 44 46 48 47 47 46Unknown 5 4 3* 3* 2* 3* 2* 3* 3* 4* 5

Type of schoolPublic 94 92 96* 93 91 88 91 89 91 91 92Catholic 4 6 2* 3 6 8 5 6 ‡ ‡ 4

‡ Reporting standards not met. * Significantly different (p < .05) from 2008. 1 Original assessment format. Results prior to 2004 are also from the original assessment format. 2 Revised assessment format. Results after 2004 are also from the revised assessment format. 3 For students at age 9, results are not shown for the parental education level category because research indicates that these students are less likely to report this information accurately. 4 For students at age 17, results are not shown for private schools under the type of school category because the minimum participation guidelines for reporting were not met. NOTE: Black includes African American, Hispanic includes Latino, and “other” includes Asian, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native, and unclassified. Race categories exclude Hispanic origin. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1978–2008 Long-Term Trend Mathematics Assessments.

54 THE NATION’S REPORT CARD

Page 55: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

1 Original assessment format. Results prior to 2004 are also from the original assessment format. 2 Revised assessment format. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), various years, 1990–2004 Long-Term Trend Reading and Mathematics Assessments.

TABLE A-3. Percentage of students identified as students with disabilities and/or English language learners excluded in NAEP reading and mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by subject and age group: Various years, 1990–2004

Subject and age group 1990 1992 1994 1996 1999 20041 20042

Reading

Age 9 5.5 6.6 7.4 8.1 7.9 8.1 5.2

Age 13 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.9 6.5 8.3 4.9

Age 17 4.5 5.3 5.2 7.3 6.0 6.7 3.7

Mathematics

Age 9 5.3 6.7 7.8 7.8 7.4 7.0 2.9

Age 13 5.3 6.0 6.2 6.5 6.1 7.9 3.2

Age 17 4.5 5.4 5.3 7.4 6.1 7.3 3.2

# Rounds to zero. NOTE: Students identified as both SD and ELL were counted only once under the combined SD and/or ELL category, but were counted separately under the SD and ELL categories. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 2008 Long-Term Trend Reading and Mathematics Assessments.

TABLE A-4. Percentage of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-old students with disabilities (SD) and/or English language learners (ELL) identified, excluded, and assessed in NAEP reading and mathematics, as a percentage of all students, by SD/ELL category: 2008

Reading Mathematics

SD/ELL category Age 9 Age 13 Age 17 Age 9 Age 13 Age 17

SD and/or ELL

Identified 21 18 16 20 18 15

Excluded 4 4 4 3 3 4

Assessed 16 14 12 18 15 12

Without accommodations 9 6 5 8 5 4

With accommodations 8 8 8 10 9 8

SD

Identified 11 13 12 11 13 11

Excluded 3 3 3 2 3 3

Assessed 8 10 9 9 10 8

Without accommodations 2 3 2 2 2 2

With accommodations 6 7 7 7 8 7

ELL

Identified 10 6 5 10 6 5

Excluded 2 1 1 1 # 1

Assessed 9 5 4 10 5 4

Without accommodations 6 4 3 6 4 2

With accommodations 2 2 1 4 2 2

TRENDS IN ACADEMIC PROGRESS 55

Page 56: NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress · 2013. 8. 2. · While the reading score gaps between White and Black students at all three ages showed no signicant change from 2004 to 2008,

www.ed.gov

“ T H E D E P A R T M E N T O F E D U C A T I O N ’ S M I S S I O N I S T O P R O M O T E S T U D E N T A C H I E V E M E N T A N D P R E P A R A T I O N F O R G L O B A L C O M P E T I T I V E N E S S B Y F O S T E R I N G E D U C A T I O N A L

E X C E L L E N C E A N D E N S U R I N G E Q U A L A C C E S S . ”

T H E N A T I O N ’ S R E P O R T C A R D

N A E P 2 0 0 8 T r e n d s i n A c a d e m i c P r o g r e s sApril 2009

M O R E I N F O R M A T I O NThe report release site is http://nationsreportcard.gov. The NCES web electronic catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.For ordering information, write to U.S. Department of Education ED Pubs P.O. Box 1398 Jessup, MD 20794-1398or call toll free 1-877-4ED-Pubsor order online at http://www.edpubs.org.

S U G G E S T E D C I T A T I O NRampey, B.D., Dion, G.S., and Donahue, P.L. (2009). NAEP 2008 Trends in Academic Progress (NCES 2009–479). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.

C O N T E N T C O N T A C TJonathan Beard202-502-7323 [email protected]

T H E N A T I O N A L A S S E S S M E N T G O V E R N I N G B O A R DIn 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board to set policy for the National Assessment of Educational Progress, commonly known as The Nation's Report Card TM. The Governing Board is an independent, bipartisan group whose members include governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators, business representatives, and members of the general public.

Darvin M. Winick, Chair PresidentWinick & AssociatesAustin, Texas Amanda P. Avallone, Vice Chair Assistant Principal and Eighth-Grade Teacher

Summit Middle School Boulder, Colorado David J. Alukonis ChairmanHudson School BoardHudson, New Hampshire Gregory Cizek Professor of Educational Measurement

University of North CarolinaChapel Hill, North CarolinaCarol A. D’Amico President and Chief Executive Officer

Conexus IndianaIndianapolis, IndianaHonorable David P. Driscoll Former Commissioner of Education Massachusetts Department of Education

Malden, Massachusetts Louis M. FabrizioDirector, Division of Accountability Services

North Carolina Department of Public Instruction

Raleigh, North CarolinaHonorable Anitere Flores MemberFlorida House of RepresentativesMiami, Florida

Alan J. Friedman ConsultantMuseum Development and Science Communication

New York, New York David W. Gordon County Superintendent of Schools Sacramento County Office of Education Sacramento, California Robin C. Hall Principal Beecher Hills Elementary SchoolAtlanta, Georgia Kathi M. King Twelfth-Grade TeacherMessalonskee High School Oakland, MaineKim Kozbial-Hess Fourth-Grade TeacherHawkins Elementary SchoolToledo, OhioHenry Kranendonk Mathematics Curriculum SpecialistMilwaukee Public SchoolsMilwaukee, Wisconsin James S. Lanich President California Business for Education Excellence

Sacramento, California Honorable Cynthia L. Nava Senator New Mexico State Senate Las Cruces, New Mexico Honorable Steven L. Paine State Superintendent of SchoolsWest Virginia Department of Education Charleston, West Virginia

Susan Pimentel Educational ConsultantHanover, New Hampshire Andrew C. Porter Dean Graduate School of EducationUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania Honorable Kathleen Sebelius Governor of KansasTopeka, Kansas Warren T. Smith, Sr. Vice PresidentWashington State Board of Education

Olympia, Washington Mary Frances Taymans, SNDExecutive DirectorSecondary Schools DepartmentNational Catholic Educational Association

Washington, D.C.Oscar A. TroncosoPrincipalAnthony High SchoolAnthony, TexasEileen L. Weiser General Public RepresentativeAnn Arbor, MichiganSue Betka (Ex officio) Acting DirectorInstitute of Education SciencesU.S. Department of EducationWashington, D.C.

Mary CrovoInterim Executive Director National Assessment Governing Board

Washington, D.C.

U . S . D E P A R T M E N T O F E D U C A T I O NThe National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a congressionally authorized project sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education. The National Center for Education Statistics, a department within the Institute of Education Sciences, administers NAEP. The Commissioner of Education Statistics is responsible by law for carrying out the NAEP project.

Arne DuncanSecretaryU.S. Department of Education

Sue BetkaActing DirectorInstitute of Education Sciences

Stuart KerachskyActing CommissionerNational Center for Education Statistics